| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Use footnote style to bypass the tidy check
|
|
Removes extra "the" from the phrase "the the Rust Programming Language
book", which isn't particularly grammatical.
|
|
There are hundreds of stackoverflow answers, reddit posts and blog
articles that link to these documents, so it's a nicer user experience
if they're not plain 404s.
The intention is to let these hang around only for relatively short
while. The alpha is likely to bring in many new users and they will be
reading the documents mentioned above.
|
|
This pulls all of our long-form documentation into a single document,
nicknamed "the book" and formally titled "The Rust Programming
Language."
A few things motivated this change:
* People knew of The Guide, but not the individual Guides. This merges
them together, helping discoverability.
* You can get all of Rust's longform documentation in one place, which
is nice.
* We now have rustbook in-tree, which can generate this kind of
documentation. While its style is basic, the general idea is much
better: a table of contents on the left-hand side.
* Rather than a almost 10,000-line guide.md, there are now smaller files
per section.
|
|
Fixes #19861
/cc @huonw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes #19861
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Philipp Gesang <phg@phi-gamma.net>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
|
|
Replace `#[ignore(cfg(a, b))]` with `#[cfg_attr(all(a, b), ignore)]`
|
|
|
|
This breaks a fair amount of code. The typical patterns are:
* `for _ in range(0, 10)`: change to `for _ in range(0u, 10)`;
* `println!("{}", 3)`: change to `println!("{}", 3i)`;
* `[1, 2, 3].len()`: change to `[1i, 2, 3].len()`.
RFC #30. Closes #6023.
[breaking-change]
|
|
rustdoc now supports compiling things with `--test` so the examples in
this guide can be compiled & tested properly (revealing a few issues &
out-dated behaviours).
Also, reword an example to be clearer, cc #12242.
|
|
Now that rustdoc understands proper language tags
as the code not being Rust, we can tag everything
properly.
This change tags examples in other languages by
their language. Plain notations are marked as `text`.
Console examples are marked as `console`.
Also fix markdown.rs to not highlight non-rust code.
|
|
This is fully backwards compatible, since test names are Rust
identifiers + `:`, and hence not special regex characters.
Fixes #2866.
|
|
See #13476
|
|
|
|
Closes #12640
|
|
Closes #12702
|
|
The changes are basically just because rustdoc runs tests/rendering on
more snippets by default (i.e. everything without a `notrust` tag), and
not anything significant.
|
|
|
|
This was previously implemented, and it just needed a snapshot to go through
|
|
be more precise about what's being benchmarked.
Also, reorganise the layout a bit, to put examples directly in their
sections.
|
|
We generate documentation into the doc/ directory, so we shouldn't be
intermingling source files with generated files
|
